The top 100 is biased...

Sir,

I liked the Top 100 drivers story so much I am reluctant to criticise. But the method seems too biased. This why the list includes Clement at 97, a loser with a few good results. No 81, Louis Renault, and his brother only drove voiturettes, not the GP cars of the time. They should not be on your list because they were F2 drivers, to use modem tongue.

Everybody will agree a great driver is one who wins a lot of races. It also is generally accepted that the less time it takes to win, the greater the driver. Therefore, the fairest rating seems to be applying the start-to-win ratio. This method is impartial and easy to understand. It is unbiased, does not care about past or present and eliminates prejudice. In order to place the champions on such a list, drivers must have started at least 12 GPs. This limitation is the downside, eliminating names like Boillot, Nazzaro, Antonio Ascari and others.

The contention is that drivers of various eras cannot be compared. It is interesting to note, however, that champions like Jim Clark, Alberto Ascari and Rudolf Caracciola took the same number of starts for each of their victories, namely 2.8. Only Fangio with 2.2 was better.

Now, where does that leave Nuvolari, my all-time favorite top dog? His popularity was due to the fact that he never gave up, but during 22 years in GP racing, Nuvolari won only seven Grandes Epreuves but also another 35 major and minor GPs.

I am, yours, etc. Hans Etzrodt, via e-mail